82 réponses à ce sujet

[vortex216]

Nrieh wrote...

Even as a warrior or mage you needed cunning

If you are talking about DAO and coercion skill that requires some cunning - it's next to none, as highest 4th point needed 16, which is very little and non-vital. Rest of points went into "primary" skills anyway, with some variations according to your playstyle (like manapool vs spellpower or hp vs damage etc).

Ok, let me rephrase that. Even as a warrior or mage you needed cunning if you wanted to play the game effectivley and well. You needed cunning for coercion and herbalsm. Coercion being one of the best skills in the game, and herbalism is needed for at least one party member.

[Doctoglethorpe]

Nizaris1 wrote...

I think throw away level up at all...no more class and no more level ups

every skills we must trained for ourselves or learn from someone...

that is realistic

That is an action game.  Go play god of war or something. 

[Marbazoid]

@OP: I would say that level scaling has really been the thing that has made people question the point of even having levels in the the first place.

Levels should represent an equivalent power within the game world itself, and not just for game-play reasons. A dragons level should be high, because its a dragon, not because the player is a high level when he encountered it.

[Plaintiff]

How is this even a question?

It serves the exact same purpose it always has. It's an abstract representation of a character's progression in various skills, and it also makes the game more fun by introducing new abilities periodically, rather than giving the strongest attacks to the character right from the very start.

[MichaelStuart]

Never liked character Levels.
I think their added just because people expect a RPG to have them, even if they add nothing to the game.

[Dragoonlordz]

They give perception of improving on a larger scale as others have said progression and slowly building up to greater understanding of the character not everything dumped on the player at start plus plays a part in difficulty curve. Without them the game would feel like an action not RPG game to me, it is one of the fundemental elements that play a part in the genre and for good reasons (imho). As for ME franchise someone mentioned, I do not consider it an RPG, I consider it a action (third person shooter) with some RPG elements tacked on and some missing.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 13 décembre 2012 - 06:18 .

[Dabrikishaw]

Wulfram wrote...

IIRC you could more or less get enough cunning just from the fade bonuses, couldn't you?

Yes. You get 5  essences of cunning in the fade, boosting your cunning to 16 from your starting 11.

[Imp of the Perverse]

In ME3 you could start out at a pretty high level if you were importing a character, and just about maxed if you were doing a second playthrough. It was still fun, especially getting to allocate a gazillion skill points right off the bat.

A lot of games I've played are particularly fun when you're first starting out, and you have to give a lot of thought to which skills you're going to prioritize to get by. Fallout 3 was great in this respect, when you first start out you really feel like someone struggling to survive in a wasteland.

On the enemy side, just boosting numbers is pretty lame, especially if it doesn't keep up with the player. Skyrim's balance got pretty broken at high levels due to the enemy's health and damage scaling roughly linearly, while the player's damage and DR went up exponentially due to multiple multiplicative skill bonuses. Borderlands at least introduced bigger versions of enemies as you leveled up, with new powers and visual effects. You'd go from skag pups to skags to skag alphas to flaming badass skags, and finally gargantuan unique boss versions. Fallout would start introducing deathclaw packs and power armor. Having a lot of enemy tiers with distinct appearances can give high level characters more of a sense of power - in a given fight you can see big powerful enemies that would have crushed you at lower levels, at the same time that you're pounding crowds of the mooks you faced at level 1 into the dirt.

[Althix]

Dragoonlordz wrote...
 I consider it a action

yeap same here. But i can say the same about DA2.

I just started another playthrough in DA:O, even if DA:O is a fusion of RPG for newguys and RPG for oldguys (leveling system in some points reminds BG, much simplier but still) it is a RPG game.

Leveling system and start from level 1 is a must for RPG game if you ask me. To see how your character evolve and become stronger, that's indeed a reward.  And to be honest, even if there is no stats/perks scaling by level up, there is always another type of leveling.

Modifié par secretsandlies, 14 décembre 2012 - 04:34 .

[Althix]

Imp of the Perverse wrote...
In ME3 you could start out at a pretty high level if you were importing a character,

thing is that you can solo Platinum with level 1 character, it takes about 2 hours. And if you start with level 30+ Shep on insanity (which is silver) you are a terminator in the kindergarden from the very start. Yes i understand it's a reward for importing me1-me2 characters. But... eh... booooooring.

[Steppenwolf]

Why do characters level up and improve/gain skills as the game progresses? Uhhhh, how about for the same reason the karate kid wasn't a karate prodigy at the start of the movie?

[In Exile]

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...
I ask the question because I see a lot of people saying they dont want to play as a newb, they want to play a powerful character with a reputation from the get go, for me however this kind of undermines the whole leveling mechanic. For me leveling up is supposed to represent some form of character growth, the character you create isnt a mighty hero at the start but as you progress through the game the trials and obstacles he faces along the journey forge him into one, leveling up to me is supposed to represent this growth.

Then how did you deal with DA:O? Because the whole point of that game is that we were a badass from the start. 

[In Exile]

Marbazoid wrote...

@OP: I would say that level scaling has really been the thing that has made people question the point of even having levels in the the first place.

Which is, of course, silly, because the benefit of talents is non-linear. Even if none of the attributes (if you build right) change from Lv 1 to 5 in DA:O, and you do exactly the same relative base DMG/ability... if at level 5 you get Mana Clash suddenly you have a gamebreaker.

In a game like Oblivion where there's no extra progression mechanic, level-scaling might plateu the whole game. But not when talents are involved.

Levels should represent an equivalent power within the game world itself, and not just for game-play reasons. A dragons level should be high, because its a dragon, not because the player is a high level when he encountered it.

RPGs are dumb. The mechanics make no sense ,and the visual presentation is insane. You have someone literally being chomped by dragons, thrown around a room, frozen, lit on fire, etc. etc. etc. and as long as he drinks enough magic water, he's fine. 

The idea that there is any semblance of connection with reality between in-game powers, resilience and the gameplay mechanics is just so absurd. 

[Imp of the Perverse]

secretsandlies wrote...

Imp of the Perverse wrote...
In ME3 you could start out at a pretty high level if you were importing a character,

thing is that you can solo Platinum with level 1 character, it takes about 2 hours. And if you start with level 30+ Shep on insanity (which is silver) you are a terminator in the kindergarden from the very start. Yes i understand it's a reward for importing me1-me2 characters. But... eh... booooooring.

After playing a gazillion hours of multiplayer the single player campaign's difficulty is a joke, but insanity was difficult enough on my first playthrough even with an imported shepard. I've also stopped promoting in MP so I'm always using max level characters, and it's still fun.

You could probably have a satisfying RPG where your character starts out about 50% maxed, and reaches all the caps well before the end of the game, if the story and gameplay are fun enough. The main reason I don't promote in MP is because it's more fun playing with a character that has all his powers, then with a level 1 that can pretty much only shoot. It wouldn't fit for every RPG, but it'd be appropriate for one where you're playing an established badass.

[Gandalf-the-Fabulous]

AlexJK wrote...

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...

... is the level up mechanic actually needed?

What do you mean by "the level up mechanic"? A sense of progression - and desire to progress - is always needed, as well as methods to balance and vary the challenge offered during the game. But those things can be provided by lots of different mechanics.

Ultimately, no, the stat-based approach that DAO and DA2 used isn't "needed", but it couldn't just be dropped entirely.

When I say "the level up mechanic" I am talking purely about the numerical value that is assigned to your character to represent their variable power level in comparison to everyone else in that world and the act of placing 2 points in your character's primary stat for every point you place in your character's secondary stat everytime this numerical value increases. This has nothing to do with stats or the aquisition of new gear and spells/abilities even if they are often tied into the leveling up process.

secretsandlies wrote...

Leveling system and start from level 1 is a must for RPG game if you ask me. To see how your character evolve and become stronger, that's indeed a reward.

Dont get me wrong, I consider character growth to be one of the more important aspects of an RPG and if done right one of my favorite aspects of the genre, but in a game where character growth gets no focus (Mass Effect) or character growth is hardly noticable (any game with level scaling) is it really worth having a level up system? In a game where your character is supposed to already be at the top of his game as many people seem to want (like Shepard) is there any point to gaining experience and leveling up?

In Exile wrote...

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...
I ask the question because I see a lot of people saying they dont want to play as a newb, they want to play a powerful character with a reputation from the get go, for me however this kind of undermines the whole leveling mechanic. For me leveling up is supposed to represent some form of character growth, the character you create isnt a mighty hero at the start but as you progress through the game the trials and obstacles he faces along the journey forge him into one, leveling up to me is supposed to represent this growth.

Then how did you deal with DA:O? Because the whole point of that game is that we were a badass from the start.

I am in part refering to DA:O as it for the most part has the same problem.

[AlexJK]

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...

When I say "the level up mechanic" I am talking purely about the numerical value that is assigned to your character to represent their variable power level in comparison to everyone else in that world and the act of placing 2 points in your character's primary stat for every point you place in your character's secondary stat everytime this numerical value increases.

Then no, that's not necessary. Stat points are only useful when it's possible to make unconventional builds (ie. *not* putting points in the same primary and secondary stats each level). If it's impossible to build a Rogue without stuffing every point into DEX and CUN... well then just do it for me.

[Althix]

Gandalf-the-Fabulous wrote...
but in a game where character growth gets no focus (Mass Effect)

mmm, you see i can't name ME an RPG, even ME1. Action with RPG elements? yes. But that's it. It's like battlefield you know? You have levels in battlefield, but level have no effect on your overall performance. Same thing with ME, for example. I like top level armor of ME1 - like Colosus armor, black-red theme. Or krogan armor - the one you can see on Krogan Vanguard/Adept in ME3 MP. But that's all.

And i a playing DA:O right now, and on your game page you can see your progress.

that's what i am talking about. You progress, meeting people, endure combat, your character grow and see feel it. That's important. You care about points investments, building your character from nothing. You are learning with your character. If you have a character 50% away from cap level... well i guess it's fine. But i am playing Nightmare DA:O run with a dog and single mage and if let say i would have level 17-18 character from a start i would lose most of the fun in outmaneuvering foes, and building my party to fight as i see it.

Assault on Tower of Ishal on Nightmare with out casualties or potions overuse is not easy. And there is a Deep Roads ahead.

Modifié par secretsandlies, 14 décembre 2012 - 10:29 .

[Doctoglethorpe]

Nizaris1 wrote...

Doctor Moustache wrote...

Nizaris1 wrote...

I think throw away level up at all...no more class and no more level ups

every skills we must trained for ourselves or learn from someone...

that is realistic

That is an action game.  Go play god of war or something. 

Why not? In FPS the game progress when the character find new weapons, shields, and new enemies...there is no level up but the game give challenges

You're missing the point.  Leveling up is a hallmark of rpgs.  If you don't like it you can play other types of games that already don't involve it, like action games, or shooters like you mentioned.  Why should rpgs be converted into action games? 

[Islandrockzor]

Leveling only adds to the game if you have an actual choice in what attributes you put points into etc.

Bad example(imo): Dragon Age 2. Every class having 2 skills, set in stone, really boring, adds nothing to the game.

Good example(imo): KOTOR/KOTOR 2. Depending on weapons choice, base class, combat/force focus and crafting(kotor2) you could pretty much tailor your character to fit any role you wished. The base classes only offered different class-skills to utilize your skills and attributes.

[Plaintiff]

Doctor Moustache wrote...

Nizaris1 wrote...

Doctor Moustache wrote...

Nizaris1 wrote...

I think throw away level up at all...no more class and no more level ups

every skills we must trained for ourselves or learn from someone...

that is realistic

That is an action game.  Go play god of war or something. 

Why not? In FPS the game progress when the character find new weapons, shields, and new enemies...there is no level up but the game give challenges

You're missing the point.  Leveling up is a hallmark of rpgs.  If you don't like it you can play other types of games that already don't involve it, like action games, or shooters like you mentioned.  Why should rpgs be converted into action games? 

So a game that allows you to create your own character and affect story outcomes by your actions is  not an RPG unless it involves a levelling system?

[Fyurian2]

Plaintiff wrote...

Doctor Moustache wrote...

Nizaris1 wrote...

Doctor Moustache wrote...

Nizaris1 wrote...

I think throw away level up at all...no more class and no more level ups

every skills we must trained for ourselves or learn from someone...

that is realistic

That is an action game.  Go play god of war or something. 

Why not? In FPS the game progress when the character find new weapons, shields, and new enemies...there is no level up but the game give challenges

You're missing the point.  Leveling up is a hallmark of rpgs.  If you don't like it you can play other types of games that already don't involve it, like action games, or shooters like you mentioned.  Why should rpgs be converted into action games? 

So a game that allows you to create your own character and affect story outcomes by your actions is  not an RPG unless it involves a levelling system?

Basically, in a lot of people's eyes, yes.
It's to do with tailoring your character's capabilities to your own design, shaping them as much by what they can do, no just what they do.
In other words, making the character ours (as much as we can), instead of the character we're given.

[Plaintiff]

Fyurian2 wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Doctor Moustache wrote...

Nizaris1 wrote...

Doctor Moustache wrote...

Nizaris1 wrote...

I think throw away level up at all...no more class and no more level ups

every skills we must trained for ourselves or learn from someone...

that is realistic

That is an action game.  Go play god of war or something. 

Why not? In FPS the game progress when the character find new weapons, shields, and new enemies...there is no level up but the game give challenges

You're missing the point.  Leveling up is a hallmark of rpgs.  If you don't like it you can play other types of games that already don't involve it, like action games, or shooters like you mentioned.  Why should rpgs be converted into action games? 

So a game that allows you to create your own character and affect story outcomes by your actions is  not an RPG unless it involves a levelling system?

Basically, in a lot of people's eyes, yes.
It's to do with tailoring your character's capabilities to your own design, shaping them as much by what they can do, no just what they do.
In other words, making the character ours (as much as we can), instead of the character we're given.

Maybe if you're used to tabletop systems, which most role-playing videogames are based on, but those weren't the only way to roleplay before computers.

The old Sword and Sorcery game-books, for example, were a form of single-player roleplay that allowed you to tailor your character's skills, although they sometimes gave you a set backstory, and they didn't feature a levelling system.

[Althix]

yeah right, i guess on zx spectrum there were games such as in sword and sorcery books.
however D&D system had more bigger impact on pc gaming and gaming as whole.

Modifié par secretsandlies, 14 décembre 2012 - 12:39 .

[Plaintiff]

secretsandlies wrote...

yeah right, i guess on zx spectrum there were games such as in sword and sorcery books.
however D&D system had more bigger impact on pc gaming and gaming as whole.

And that's perfectly fine. I just think that blindly clinging to the "old ways" hampers the genre more than it helps it.

To me, the most important, and indeed, only qualifier of an RPG is that it allows for a modicum of choice in how story events unfold. 

In the case of DA2, I think I get a decent amount of choice in how Hawke acts or reacts to various situations, and that's enough for me. The fact that his ultimate impact on events can be argued to be ultimately negligible doesn't make it any less of a roleplaying game to me.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 14 décembre 2012 - 01:00 .